User:Bahamut0013/Unit representatives

If you're reading this essay, you've probably been referred here because you disclosed your reasons for editing are orders from your military superiors. You might be a public affairs / civil–military relations rep, a unit historian, or just whomever was handy at the time when your commanding officer noted a problem on Wikipedia that he or she wanted fixed. The chances are slim that you've ever edited Wikipedia before, and even slimmer that you are familiar with our myriad policies and guidelines. If so, you need to familiarize yourself with them, or your time on Wikipedia will be short and frustrating. If you work with other editors, you may very well be able to report mission success.

Editing Wikipedia can be rather confusing and intimidating for new users. Please read the welcome page, and if you need help, visit WikiProject Military history to meet the collaboration of editors with an interest in military-related articles or the Help desk for general Wikipedia-related help. Once you get going, you may find that you enjoy editing, and might want to edit for your own sake as well.

The bottom line

To be frank and honest, the bottom line is simple: neither the military nor the government can dictate what Wikipedia covers in its content, and how it covers it. What you and/or your superiors want to see on Wikipedia might not be possible.

Wikipedia is governed mostly by consensus. Our policies and guidelines were created by editors collaboriting and compromising on every facet of encyclopedia building. If consensus is against you and your unit's goals, then they will not be met on Wikipedia. The best way to go about this is to be civil at all times, and work with other editors towards a collective goal. Other editors are all volunteers, but generally try to help out newcomers. However, they cannot allow violations of policy and guidelines to happen, and if you are responsible, you will be held accountable for your actions. Cooperation is key: if you are friendly, flexible, and have a spirit of teamwork, others will bend over backward to help you.

Conflict of interest

First off, you should declare your conflict of interest (COI) immediately. The best way to do so would be to create an account and pick a username that reflects that (however, don't pick a name that actually is that of your command, that may get you blocked under our username policy. You also cannot share your account or create a shared "organizational" account, every edit must be able to be attributed to one individual). Declare on your user page who you are (don't get too specific; all you really should offer is rank, name, and unit, and per the privacy policy, you aren't required to offer any information, personal or not, that you aren't comfortable offering, and common sense says that you shouldn't "out" yourself), your orders/goals, and anything else you think might be worth sharing to help accomplish your mission. You should never try to speak for anyone other than yourself (i.e. for your military or for your government), and stick to the relevant article(s) (though, if you enjoyed your experience and would like to stay, we would welcome you).

Because of your conflict of interest, you will have to tread very lightly. Your edits on the topic you have a COI with must be impeccable and completely in line with policy and guidelines, or they will be reverted. You should use talk pages (sometimes known as "discussion" pages) regularly, especially for edits that might be disputed or controversial. You will have to follow the Manual of Style, cite references that are verifiable and reliable sources, don't contain original research, and adhere to a neutral point of view without fail. Some people consider servicemembers editing as a type of paid editing, which has proven to be quite controversial in the past.

You must also be aware that anything you add to Wikipedia can be edited, changed, deleted, or redistributed. All edits released under the the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL (under the Terms of Use you agree to by clicking the "Save page" button), which means that it can be can be mercilessly torn up by other editors, as well as copied/redistributed by entities outside of the Wikimedia Foundation. Even more important, there is no ownership of articles, no matter who created it, edited it, or wrote the original content. If you or your superiors are not comfortable with the idea of your edits being copied and abused, then do not submit them to Wikipedia, because you can't control them after that.

Starting a new article

First off, you should do some searching to make sure that there isn't already an article! The article title policy and the Manual of Style sometimes mean that the topic you want may not be at an obvious title. Keep an eye out for disambiguation and redirect pages.

There are lots of ways to get help in starting a new article. If you don't feel confident in doing it all yourself, try asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, or make a request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you feel like trying it yourself, there is an article wizard and this how-to guide; be sure to watch the instructional video.

The best practice for new editors is to create a userspace draft: you'll need to create an account to do this. It will create a draft as a user page; these aren't visible as articles. You can then improve it and ask for help until it is ready to go "live".

Notability

One of the biggest hurdles you will probably face is creating new articles that fall in line with our notability guideline. There are few ways to get a new article deleted than for it to fail the notability requirements. Depending on the type of article, there may be specific subguidelines that apply as well, such as organizations and companies, biographies, and books. However, the general notability guideline (GNG) is a requirement for all articles, regardless of topic:

“ If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
• "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

”

When it comes to military subjects, WikiProject Military history's notability guide is the best rule of thumb to consult when regarding notability. There are nine possible avenues for notability for people, and seven for units/formations/commands. While these are not all inclusive, articles that don't meet at least one of them are very unlikely to survive consideration for deletion. Other topics, like weapons, vehicles, military science, or other concepts don't have specific guidelines, but must pass the GNG to be kept on Wikipedia.

It's important to read What Wikipedia is not for an idea of the many things that aren't suitable for Wikipedia. While it's unlikely that a unit-directed editor will be ordered to create such an article, editors with an interest in military topics sometimes have to be made aware of WP:NOT#DICDEF, WP:SOAP, WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and especially WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Things that were made up one day or not covered by any sort of reference are not notable.

If your article faces scrutiny, it may be helpful to read Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! and Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?.

Article content

So, what if the article already exists, but your command thinks there is a problem with it? Well, it depends on what the problem is. Not all of the articles on Wikipedia are in good shape, and most could surely use some work. Never hesitate to remove vandalism from any page. Adding content to an existing page is usually not very controversial, as long as it's not self-promotional or violates the policy on neutral point of view. This is also where Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not comes into play, because even if an article is notable, some types of content on an article is not. For example, in writing about a battalion, an overview of the unit's capabilities/mission, combat history, notable deployments, and awards would be relevant, but a list of every executive officer, a phone directory, deployment roster, or detailed list of equipment that roughly matches every other similar unit would not be appropriate. Follow the image use policy; don't upload unofficial logos or patches, don't post personal photos that don't represent the unit as a whole, and don't post non-free content unless it meets the criteria.

Format is also important to consider. The Manual of Style (MOS) is rather large, with many sub-pages and exceptions, and this can be rather intimidating for new editors. The layout MOS is a great start, and any military editor should read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history). Help:List of Manuals of Style will help you find any other specific rules, like abbreviations, dates and numbers, and links.

There are always resources to go to for help. The first place to turn for anything related to military topics is WikiProject Military history, whose editors have experience in writing from scratch, improving, and reviewing a wide variety of articles, and are always happy to help a newbie (or experienced editor, for that matter).

Referencing

The way that Wikipedia works is a bit different from a traditional encyclopedia, or your unit's official website. We don't publish original research or thoughts, so everything you add to a Wikipedia article must be able to be verfied. The only real way to do this (for 99.999% of cases) is to cite a source. This is a requirement for virtually anything that can be added to an article, so even if it's true, you have to be able to prove that it is true with a reference. Because this is a website on the internet, there are plenty of ways to find references, not to mention that militaries tend to keep detailed records on a variety of topics.

However, one must be careful about what to cite, as some types of sources are less appropriate than others. First and foremost, you shouldn't cite yourself; even if you are an expert in a given topic or field, it can't be proven simply based on your word. If you've been published in some kind of journal or news media, that might be an acceptable source, but be cautious and seek advice. Your unit's official website probably makes an acceptable external link (but not others such as social media pages or association/reuinion sites), but is rarely an acceptable source for anything outside of the routine (such as the name of the current commander). Be cautious about citing press releases or news written by your unit/military, since these may be regarded as a COI and/or a self-published source. Avoid citing sources that are restricted (and certainly don't try to cite anything that is classified; while this may be acceptable for Wikipedia, it will surely get you into trouble with your command!) or otherwise unavailable to the general public.

If you happen to serve in the United States Armed Forces, you have an advantage in that everything produced by you and your government in the line of duty is in the public domain (see copyright status of work by the U.S. government). As such, you don't often have to worry about copyright policy. However, this vast wealth of text, images, and other media can sometimes tempt an editor into simply copying relevant information into an article; please don't do this. While the Plagiarism guideline allows for this to a degree, excessive copying can be considered disruptive, as well as simply poor writing. Be judicious, attribute and cite properly, don't quote when unnecessary, use the proper license tags for uploaded files, and use your skills as a writer. Also, note that editing Wikipedia, even under orders or on behalf of the government, attributes your edits as an editor and releases your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL under the Terms of Use you agree to by clicking the "Save page" button.

Disputes

So, what if you've written an article, or started editing an article, and somebody has come along and reverted some or all of your contributions? The first step in dispute resolution should be to discuss the matter. Avoid reverting back or editing your changes back in, because this can lead to an edit war and possibly blocking for violations of the three revert rule (3RR). Any sort of disruptive behavior, including incivility or harassment will be detrimental to your goals; if you get blocked for bad behavior, you will fail to get the mission done! Use the talk pages, either for the article or for the user who you have a dispute with, and be sure to follow the talk page guidelines (especially signing your posts to help identify who said what). Use good etiquette, assume good faith, and stay cool if the discussion gets heated.

Simply put, the best way to get what you want is through cooperation and talking. If you try to bully, provoke, dominate, or push other editors, you will surely fail. You will need to ask questions, do some research, and read the replies of others with an open mind. Consider what others have to say carefully, because sometimes, what you want may not be possible; there are usually compromises, but sometimes there simply isn't any room for it on an encyclopedia. If that's true, learning the rules and why they are there will allow you to go back to your superiors and tell them why the goal isn't possible with Wikipedia.

If you feel that discussion is going nowhere, or that you're dealing with a troublesome editor (defined as disruptive past the point that he or she merely disagrees with you), there are other methods of dispute resolution, and feel free to take them up. Or, simply bring the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history or one of the many Wikipedia:noticeboards to get more parties into the discussion.

End result

Hopefully, your goals are compatible with those of Wikipedia. If they are, then we look forward to working with you to create quality articles! If not, then we are sorry that we can't help you, and hope you can find other ways of meeting your unit's goals.